How do we escape the Rat Utopia while keeping the good parts of modern life?

I used to be an anarcho primitivist(I still am on some things) because of the fact that outside of computers getting faster, I haven't seen any helpful technological advancements in my lifetime. But I now realized that's because tech that helps people isn't what the elites want, they want to control and subjugate us.

Back to the beginning, I do think we can eat our cake and have it too, because alot of these problems aren't because we're too comfortable, its because we have no agency. What we just need a new free-er fairer world.
 
My dude, what is this doomer drivel? No one wants to go back to hunter-gathering society were you might as well have your skin peel off by smallpox. Same way no one wants to live in a pod, unless you're the definition stereotype soy loser. One way or another, the dystopian shit would rebound.
united-states-food-inflation.pngunited-states-government-debt-to-gdp.png
What people want is to fund their addictions at the cost of the world and future generations, while being woke third-worldists who want to reduce the world population to 5-7% of its current figure. Choice has nothing to do with it. All empire fall to tolerance, debt, and apathy. America has those in spades. You say that its likely normalcy continues, I say a billionaire loses his money a little at a time and then suddenly all at once. America is exactly that sort of rich, we don't care how the money comes in and we don't intend to be thrifty with it. We aren't going to talk each other over to the other's side on this one. Reality will pick a winner, and I'm using history to wonder at America's future. Maybe I'm wrong, but maybe I'm not.

Also about space travel, it's ridiculously hard IRL.
The Orion nuclear pulse rocket design has extremely high performance. Orion nuclear pulse rockets using nuclear fission type pulse units were originally intended for use on interplanetary space flights.

Missions that were designed for an Orion vehicle in the original project included single stage (i.e., directly from Earth's surface) to Mars and back, and a trip to one of the moons of Saturn.

Freeman Dyson performed the first analysis of what kinds of Orion missions were possible to reach Alpha Centauri, the nearest star system to the Sun. His 1968 paper "Interstellar Transport" (Physics Today, October 1968, pp. 41–45) retained the concept of large nuclear explosions but Dyson moved away from the use of fission bombs and considered the use of one megaton deuterium fusion explosions instead. His conclusions were simple: the debris velocity of fusion explosions was probably in the 3000–30,000 km/s range and the reflecting geometry of Orion's hemispherical pusher plate would reduce that range to 750–15,000 km/s.

To estimate the upper and lower limits of what could be done using contemporary technology in 1968, Dyson considered two starship designs. The more conservative energy limited pusher plate design simply had to absorb all the thermal energy of each impinging explosion (4×1015 joules, half of which would be absorbed by the pusher plate) without melting. Dyson estimated that if the exposed surface consisted of copper with a thickness of 1 mm, then the diameter and mass of the hemispherical pusher plate would have to be 20 kilometers and 5 million tonnes, respectively. 100 seconds would be required to allow the copper to radiatively cool before the next explosion. It would then take on the order of 1000 years for the energy-limited heat sink Orion design to reach Alpha Centauri.

In order to improve on this performance while reducing size and cost, Dyson also considered an alternative momentum limited pusher plate design where an ablation coating of the exposed surface is substituted to get rid of the excess heat. The limitation is then set by the capacity of shock absorbers to transfer momentum from the impulsively accelerated pusher plate to the smoothly accelerated vehicle. Dyson calculated that the properties of available materials limited the velocity transferred by each explosion to ~30 meters per second independent of the size and nature of the explosion. If the vehicle is to be accelerated at 1 Earth gravity (9.81 m/s2) with this velocity transfer, then the pulse rate is one explosion every three seconds. The dimensions and performance of Dyson's vehicles are given in the following table:

"Energy Limited"
Orion
"Momentum Limited"
Orion
Ship diameter (meters)20,000 m100 m
Mass of empty ship (tonnes)10,000,000 t (incl.5,000,000 t copper hemisphere)100,000 t (incl. 50,000 t structure+payload)
+Number of bombs = total bomb mass (each 1 Mt bomb weighs 1 tonne)30,000,000300,000
=Departure mass (tonnes)40,000,000 t400,000 t
Maximum velocity (kilometers per second)1000 km/s (=0.33% of the speed of light)10,000 km/s (=3.3% of the speed of light)
Mean acceleration (Earth gravities)0.00003 g (accelerate for 100 years)1 g (accelerate for 10 days)
Time to Alpha Centauri (one way, no slow down)1330 years133 years
Estimated cost1 year of U.S. GNP (1968 USD), $3.67 Trillion0.1 year of U.S. GNP $0.367 Trillion
Later studies indicate that the top cruise velocity that can theoretically be achieved are a few percent of the speed of light (0.08–0.1c). An atomic (fission) Orion can achieve perhaps 9%–11% of the speed of light. A nuclear pulse drive starship powered by fusion-antimatter catalyzed nuclear pulse propulsion units would be similarly in the 10% range and pure Matter-antimatter annihilation rockets would be theoretically capable of obtaining a velocity between 50% to 80% of the speed of light. In each case saving fuel for slowing down halves the maximum speed. The concept of using a magnetic sail to decelerate the spacecraft as it approaches its destination has been discussed as an alternative to using propellant; this would allow the ship to travel near the maximum theoretical velocity.

At 0.1c, Orion thermonuclear starships would require a flight time of at least 44 years to reach Alpha Centauri, not counting time needed to reach that speed (about 36 days at constant acceleration of 1g or 9.8 m/s2). At 0.1c, an Orion starship would require 100 years to travel 10 light years. The astronomer Carl Sagan suggested that this would be an excellent use for current stockpiles of nuclear weapons.
Modern_Pulsed_Fission_Propulsion_Concept.jpg
 
The family and Nationalism has proven time and time again to be the simplest, easiest and most effective ways to motivate a population and give them something to believe in/strive for.

Nationalism in the west has basically dissolved and the family unit is under constant attack being undermined nonstop by what would in any other time of history be called undesirables, today we call them progressives.

Also, just want to make this clear, when I say nationalism I mean actual nationalism, not whatever joke passes for nationalism in the us, the us is irreversibly fucked on every level (and probably deserves it too), this is about saving everyone else.
 
On the other hand... there's something deeply disturbing about wanting people to suffer for the sake of character building. "We don't want TOO much peace. We don't want TOO much prosperity. We don't want medicine to get TOO advanced." Don't we? Aren't all these things good? I know a lot of people here are into faux-ironic anarcho-primitivist RETVRN stuff. But I personally rather like not having my teeth fall out by the age of 40 and dying in a ditch from a minor cut that got infected.
This is the imbecile's or subversive's argument against those who have the temerity to care about more than the immediate health of a people. There is a great difference between wanting people to suffer and having the heart to stop the perpetuation of suffering.

Additionally it's folly to classify these modern developments as "advancements". Much of modernity is designed to treat symptoms rather than causes, to perpetuate suffering and create dependent populations. This is what fools and jews call "progress", but no matter how complex the theory behind it, who capable of taking a step back would call it that? No, as often as "advances" in technology are used to empower man they are used to make him feeble. A real improvement occurs when a people comes to know the difference, rejecting that which is used to enslave them, grasping that which empowers them, and bringing down judgment on the sociopaths who stand in opposition.
 
Joe Hogan has the answer to this.
 

Attachments

  • 6rofqn.jpg
    6rofqn.jpg
    103.3 KB · Views: 63
You can be wealthy and not slip into decadence. Rome was extremely wealthy throughout most of its history and only really slipped into decadence in the last few decades of its history.
 
1670888225771.png

But really, maybe the key is letting urban degeneracy fester and eat itself without letting it fester and eat everything else. I mean you can't deny the suppressive effect it has on the birthrates of degenerates is eugenic in nature.

Basically what I'm saying is we should abolish the Department of Education.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Shlomo XL
In my estimation, the problem with society today isn't directly prosperity, technology, or peace.

Rather, the problem with the world is that we live in a judgment-free, live and let live society. The mindset that we shouldn't judge others unless they're actively harming others has led us down this path of decadence and hedonism. The problem is bolstered by technology, giving anybody with access to a computer a sympathetic platform to voice their lunacy or join communities which indulge it. In conjunction with Western nations adopting multiculturalism, we now have entire nations with individuals who have nothing in common with their fellow countrymen, either in values or in identity.

There is no uniting culture or moral code which we can adhere to or guide our lives at large at this point. Rather than respecting and preserving other cultures, we instead have created an amalgamated mush in every single one of them. As a result, we all find ourselves as strangers in a strange land trying to find our own way in a globalized world.

Had we a set of common values to unite around, not in terms of creating universal agreement but merely establishing an acceptable baseline, we wouldn't see the polarization and lack of belonging that many feel every single day all around the world.
 
As bad as the economy is right now, an ancient Greek or Roman would shit themselves in envy at the decadence of all but the poorest in the US.
I am not so sure. Sure my braincandy phone and running hot water are great. But we don't get to keep what we make.
They got to keep the product of their hands. A roman paid maybe 2.5-5% of tax. So working 6 days a week would result in 15 days a year being working for the state.

We're being taxed about 50% so we're working about 156 days per year purely for the state.

Health care is perhaps the biggest advantage we got, but even that is diminishing with tranny child mutilation and gain of function rrsearch diseases being released, as well as clotshots.

Rather, the problem with the world is that we live in a judgment-free, live and let live society
No we don't. We judge masculinity, feminity, fitness, racism, homodisgustia and a whole other litany of things. We even judge accountability for out of control trannies like keffals. Live and let live, kek. You're living in the past.

As for space? I'm sorry, but the truth is, space travel is still an inevitability!
You misspelled impossibility. We can't even put a man on the moon.
 
Last edited:
No we don't. We judge masculinity, feminity, fitness, racism, homodisgustia and a whole other litany of things. We even judge accountability for out of control trannies like keffals. Live and let live, kek. You're living in the past.
I judge that you're conflating judgment of judgment with actual judgment. Society only judges those who exercise judgment and go up against societal blank check permissiveness.

Though, in my judgment, you're free to judge that you disagree.
 
We've become so prosperous that it's actually broken our brains.
I believe that to be an improper understanding of the experiment, although this misunderstanding is convenient for evil people who would seek to decrease the standards for everyone else whilst keeping such niceties for themselves. As I understand it, the experiment is about overpopulation, not decadence, per se.

Anyway, we individuals can only help ourselves and those dear to us; everything else will continue throughout our lives or fail.
 
I judge that you're conflating judgment of judgment with actual judgment. Society only judges those who exercise judgment and go up against societal blank check permissiveness.

Though, in my judgment, you're free to judge that you disagree.
Yeah it's some kafkaesque tolerance of intolerance paradox.

But that's not the point I was making. To get into the nitty gritty, society doesn't judge, groups of people do and they do so for varying metrics. Even if you try, you can't train judgement out of a human animal anymore than you can remove desire for food, sex, companionship.

I agree with your earlier point that being "live and let live" is an ideal, but it has long ceased to be an ideal that many people even try to strive towards. After four years of increasing censorship we seem to have some momentum back against it by railing against "cancel culture" and twitter docs. But kanyesque antics will soon mobilize people for more censorship again. Yin and yang two dragons eating each other's tails.

I wonder how much therapy culture is informing people to be "without judgement", and for a large part, women guiding people, who are not typically known for their good judgement.

Or perhaps it's the result of demonization of masculinity.

And people may hide their judgement, but they still judge. The place where judgement is most brutal and easily seen is who people decide to be friends or lovers with. People have lost friends over covid/vaccination disagreements. Does that signal a society without judgement and persuing the ideal of live and let live?
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Schwarzwald
And people may hide their judgement, but they still judge. The place where judgement is most brutal and easily seen is who people decide to be friends or lovers with. People have lost friends over covid/vaccination disagreements. Does that signal a society without judgement and persuing the ideal of live and let live?
You raise some very valid points, and I think we have a lot of common ground in what we're saying.

I would highlight my first post's segment "The mindset that we shouldn't judge others unless they're actively harming others" to address that. They feel justified in their demonization of others on the grounds that they're "harming others" through the choice they're making. It's the same societal justification used to go after those who oppose transgenderism, for instance. Transgenderism doesn't "harm anybody" directly, whereas those directly opposing transgenderism can be pointed out as harming transgender people, therefore they're bad and become 'justified' targets in the eyes of the masses.

That same mindset can be applied to just about anything nowadays and strongly explains how we got to where we are due to the live and let live mindset bringing us here, hence my reference to societal blank check permissiveness. It's okay to judge Christians who follow the Bible who support traditional marriage, because they're actively harming homosexuals; whereas it isn't okay to judge homosexuals because their standpoint doesn't directly disallow traditional marriages (live and let live, "doesn't harm anybody").

There's a lot of nuance in the discussion, but I think we're pretty much on the same page while focusing on two different aspects of the discussion and expressing it in different ways. Judgment is absolutely innate in individuals, but that is vastly different from living in a judgment-free society, as I am attempting to define it. In fact, that would further play into my point of feeling a disconnect from a society which disallows individuals from having standards and values.

Thank you for the discussion, fren.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Trump's Chosen
You raise some very valid points, and I think we have a lot of common ground in what we're saying.

I would highlight my first post's segment "The mindset that we shouldn't judge others unless they're actively harming others" to address that. They feel justified in their demonization of others on the grounds that they're "harming others" through the choice they're making. It's the same societal justification used to go after those who oppose transgenderism, for instance. Transgenderism doesn't "harm anybody" directly, whereas those directly opposing transgenderism can be pointed out as harming transgender people, therefore they're bad and become 'justified' targets in the eyes of the masses.

That same mindset can be applied to just about anything nowadays and strongly explains how we got to where we are due to the live and let live mindset bringing us here, hence my reference to societal blank check permissiveness. It's okay to judge Christians who follow the Bible who support traditional marriage, because they're actively harming homosexuals; whereas it isn't okay to judge homosexuals because their standpoint doesn't directly disallow traditional marriages (live and let live, "doesn't harm anybody").

There's a lot of nuance in the discussion, but I think we're pretty much on the same page while focusing on two different aspects of the discussion and expressing it in different ways. Judgment is absolutely innate in individuals, but that is vastly different from living in a judgment-free society, as I am attempting to define it. In fact, that would further play into my point of feeling a disconnect from a society which disallows individuals from having standards and values.

Thank you for the discussion, fren.
You have outmanouvred me and I see no path on how turn this into an internet slapfight.
 
  • DRINK!
  • Like
Reactions: Fek and Schwarzwald
You missed the main point of that Rat Utopia experiment, OP.

The point was that crowding made the rats lose their minds. Yes, they had everything, but they didn't have room for themselves, and then what happened, happened.

We don't have to renounce to much in reality, just absolutely rethink population density because urbanisation is making us lose our fucking minds.
If we could spread the human population on the Earth's crust like mayonnaise, evenly and in settlements of no more than 12.000 people each on average, that would be quite grand.
 
Well, is it prosperity that's causing today's issues, rather than what we choose to do with it? And are we really prosperous in the ways that matter?
To put a fine point on it: does it matter if everyone has a supercomputer in their pocket, if nobody can afford a decent education for their child?
Not so much prosperity as a lack of challenge/struggle
 
Parents no longer know how to raise children? In comparison to the time periods people routinely committed infanticide and forced their kids to marry adult pedos?

Mental illness diagnosis being on the rise isn't the same thing as mental illness itself being on the rise. That's the same logic antivaxers use to clutch pearls about how autism is totally on the rise thanks to those dang, dirty vaccines.

Given how many people still lack basic necessities like shelter and Healthcare in the US, I think burgerlanders have some time to go before worrying about the side effects of living in a utopia.
 
There is no sense of duty or community. People don't have a reason to go outside because they have everything they need inside. If you don't give people a reason to interact with others, they won't. And if women don't want kids, and they don't, then "falling in love and having a family" isn't a reason to try and interact with others because no one reasonably expects that relationship to blossom anymore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Foxtrot
There is no sense of duty or community. People don't have a reason to go outside because they have everything they need inside. If you don't give people a reason to interact with others, they won't. And if women don't want kids, and they don't, then "falling in love and having a family" isn't a reason to try and interact with others because no one reasonably expects that relationship to blossom anymore.
No one should be having kids if they don't want them. That's how you get child abuse and neglect.

Even a lot of people that think they want kids don't want the reality of having kids. If you think you're getting a tiny clone of yourself or unpaid labor/caregivers or Jesus arrows or something that can easily be the other parent's problem, you shouldn't have kids.

We still haven't gotten our child abuse/unwanted kid problem in check, got quite a ways to go before achieving a utopia in the first place.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Catler
Back